TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and construction of provision of Section 80I and 263 the Tribunal is right in sustaining the action of the C.I.T. U/s. 263 ?" 2. According to Shri Dewani, learned Counsel for the assessee, question no.2 must be first looked into and answered. He urges that if question no.2 is answered in favour of the assessee, answer to question no.1 may not be very relevant. 3. Shri Parchure, learned counsel for Revenue, however, submits that as both the questions are referred, both need to be appreciated and answered independently. According to him, effort of assessee to have answer to only question no.2 is erroneous. 4. Facts show that the assessee M/s. Vijay Udyog, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Act, and CIT does not get jurisdiction to take recourse to that provision. Those four judgments are : (1) (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT .vrs. Max India Ltd. (2) ITA No.604/2011 dated 12.09.2014 (Bombay High Court) CIT .vrs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (3) (2010) 321 ITR 92 Grassim Industries Ltd. .vrs. CIT (4) (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT .vrs. Gabrial India Ltd. 6. In order to show that the provisions of Section 80I does not prohibit the assessee from taking machinery or plant on hire for the purpose of his manufacturing activity, he has relied upon the following three judgments. (1) (1979) 119 ITR 145 (Cal). Griffon laboratories (P) Ltd. .vrs. CIT. (2) (1978) 113 ITR 718 (Cal). Addl. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on owning Dal Mill namely - M/s. Vijay Dal Mills, Akola. At one stage, learned counsel also attempted to show that in agreement except for vague description of two artificial persons as parties, other details are not given. 10. In reply argument, Shri Dewani, learned counsel has pointed out that this Court is required to decide the questions placed before it by way of reference, and in admitted facts. He submits that effort of Shri Parchure, learned counsel for revenue is to widen the scope by commenting upon the agreement is beyond the scope of present matter. He also states that this was neither the case of the revenue either before the assessing officer or then before other authorities. 11. As the law on scope of interference under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h undertaking is formed by transfer to a new business, machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Clause (iii) again creates a bar if the industrial undertaking manufactures any article or thing, which is not specified in the 11th Schedule. By Clause (iv), the ceiling on number of workers has been provided. Thus, none of these clauses prohibit the assessee from taking other industrial undertaking on hire and use it for the purpose of his manufacturing activity. 13. Provision in Section 80I( 1) along with subsection (2) to which our attention has been invited, are contained in Taxing Law and while interpreting its scope and extent, the words need to be strictly understood and it calls falls for interpretation which is in consonan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s own plant and machinery, at its own factory. There while recording these findings in paragraph no.2, the Division Bench has also noted that CBDT had accepted the correctness of the judgment of Calcutta High Court in a case Addl. CIT .vrs. A. Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), in its Circular No. 347 dated 07.07.1982. Third judgment of this Court reported at (1982) 137 ITR 879 (Bom) (CIT .vrs. Neo Pharma Pvt Ltd.), finds the assessee engaged in the business of manufacture and processing of pharmaceuticals, entitled to benefit of deduction, though the activity was being done through machinery belonging to other company on hire, under direct supervision of own staff and under own quality control of assessee. 16. In unreported judgment date....